Incidentally, the first ministry the Nazis obtained was the ministry of justice - before Hitler was appointed (not elected!) to chancellor.

Nazis were 100% leftists and were totally mainstream, in the 1930s. The founder of the modern Swedish socialist party wrote texts that sounded exactly like Hitler. The Socialist parties of France, Holland etc. supported the Nazis.

FDR was a great admirer of Mussolini - a life-long socialist - and tried to copy his economic program, which was Socialism + Keynesianism through the New Deal.

This is not "old history": both my parents and my 4 grandparents lived during the 1930s.

Modern leftists still refer to Marx - yet Marx was also Hitler's inspiration.

You can find every idea Hitler ever promoted in Marx & Engels, including the antisemitism, racism and nationalism (yes, despite Marx's parents being Jewish converts to Protestantism).

You want some choice antisemitic quotes from Marx? Just read what he said about Lassalle.

I have no interest in seeing this movie but I read your review and yikes dude. Your review probably got removed because you kinda went full on crazy person. You are certainly entitled to your opinions but next time maybe try and write a review (including whatever opinions you want to convey) that doesn't sound super insane. A good place to start would be to try and do things like using less words in all capitals like your yelling at people...oh and try not to go on to many rants about Jewish people, I'm not Jewish myself but it seems like that wouldn't be looked favourably on. What can I say its the world we live in dude. Good work on all the Facebook friends though! Im sure you will all have a laugh about those pesky Jews together, Enjoy buddy.

If your review is anything like this post, it is pretty easy to see why it was removed. You start with an acronym for a curse word. You rant. You randomly capitalize letters. You include irrelevant items (no one cares that you think you are popular on Facebook). I'm guessing your review wasn't really a review of the movie but a political rant which violates IMDb policies.

Yes, I can back up every single statement with links to valid sources and everything I say are well known facts that are not questionable.

2 years of Mueller "investigation" have turned up NOTHING except a few hundred thousand dollars spent by Russians on social media ads, which a US federal judge pointed out were totally legal and totally unrelated charges for people Mueller tried to pressure into providing accusations, unsuccessfully.

-----------------------------

This is not a documentary, this is the most ridiculous propaganda lie in history. Hillary lost because she is a horrible, corrupt person and she was completely exposed by the DNC leaker Seth Rich, shot in the back of his head in DC after he gave DNC emails to Wikileaks.

This is not just glaringly obvious - young DNC volunteer workers are usually not shot at random at night as they walk home. And it wasn't a robbery, as the police initially claimed, as nothing was missing.

Assange explained in person that Seth Rich was their informant and had been murdered because of it.

There has never been any "Russian collusion".

The DNC fabricated the completely fake Steele dossier - a foreign agent who was hired specifically to create a plausible accusation of fraud in case Hillary lost the election. Which in itself speaks volumes!

The DOJ and FBI then went to the FISA court with this dossier, which they knew to be fake, to get a warrant to spy on Trump's entourage, which represented massive election fraud.

At no point could anyone explain what the alleged "Russian influence" was supposed to be.

"Fake news"? Seriously? Millions of people would have changed their vote because of a few messages they saw on social media - inserted among GIGANTIC quantities of pro-Hillary propaganda on all channels, from mainstream media to social media?

Hillary had not one, but TWO agencies that were funded with tens of millions of dollars whose ONLY job it was to counter any negative comments on Hillary online. And she received FREE propaganda and massive help from Google, Apple, Twitter and Facebook. Even her official campaign budget was TWICE as large as Trump's.

Trump was attacked and decried in the most vile and pathetic way on all on TV and on social media, yet he got elected.

That was because of 2 things: the absolutely abysmal Obama presidency and the psychopathy of Hillary. And for those who were well informed, her association with Huma Abedin, a fanatical and antisemitic Wahabi Muslim who was managing her entire campaign and who would have held a position of power in her administration. That was a gigantic cannon ball the US dodged.

The idea that some "conspiracy" is necessary to explain Hillary's failure is absolutely ridiculous.

At what point will the loser Democrats simply admit that they lost FAIR AND SQUARE against the better candidate?

This fake "documentary" is just another sign of their inability to cope with the fact that millions of Americans reject their ideology, their identity politics and the individuals representing them.

The kind of people who are taking over the Democrat party are not exactly an improvement. The Democrat "women's march" in New Orleans was just cancelled because the organizers were found to be antisemitic and anti-white. What in the world are the Democrats thinking by allowing the likes of Linda Sarsour become one of their figureheads?

For now, wealthy Jewish donors still represent 50% of the entire funding of the Democrat party. If the Democrat leadership don't change course, the rampant antisemitism among their very vocal and visible Muslim representatives will end up driving them away no matter how leftist they may be. And at that point, they can forget about winning any elections.

And we'll get lots of stupid pseudo-documentaries about how something "unfair" happened.This is complete garbage!

This is not a review of a movie but your own partisan feelings. IMDb is not a place to discuss your political rantings. There are appropriate places to do that. I didn't make it through your first sentence without finding a lie. Mueller's investigation has had 33 indictments, 7 convictions and people are in prison. He's also seized $48 million in assets. This is hardly just finding "a few hundred thousand dollars spent by Russians on social media ads".

If you can't see that this has nothing to do with the movie you were trying to review, you may be way too partisan for your own good.

If the "film" (documentary in this case) serves to push a certain idea, opinion, or version of factual events, criticising and refuting the statements made in the documentary is completely fair play and applicable in my opinion.

An "artistic", creative, fictional film is mostly subjective and thus there are not many ways you can criticise it or break-it down beyond considering technical aspects such as cinematography, acting, editing, lighting/set design etc... In this case it is the points being made that are the focus of the film, and thus the points are completely vulnerable to refutation or debate. ﻿

I do not agree with you. To take an archetypal exemple: Triumph of the will can be assessed for its intrisic cinematographic attributes, regardless of the ideology it was supporting. Sure, it can open the discussion on that ideology. But it is IMDb policy to stick to the cinematographic aspects.When reviewing whatever version of Hamlet, are you going to elaborate about how bad it is to kill one's wife? There are other platforms to tackle the ideological/political/moral/ethical/etc. aspects. I would even say it is the review subjectivity which can make the review principle worthwile. All the other objective aspects are stored in the database.

Hamlet is a work of fiction so I'm not sure as to the relevance of that to the topic at hand. I haven't seen Triumph of the Will, but if it is supposedly a non-fiction work espousing a certain ideal or ideology, discussion of that aspect (the entire premise and reason for the films existence) should be the primary element of attention in my mind. Just as an documentary relying heavily on investigative journalism should be primarily merited on the perceived truthfulness and impartiality of the so called "facts" being presented in the documentary.

(Sorry, I meant Macbeth, of course!!)The fact that we disagree is one fair point, but the main one is that IMDb has obviously chosen to exclude "discussion of that aspect", especially when it is politcal.

Sure, but it would not reserve some space in a review to point out any lies spoken by the state officials who appear in the Triumph of the Will. Then again, using the review system to discuss the impact of the film on its first audiences might be teetering on crossing the line. As long the review is only about the film, with minimal deviation into general biopics about the creators of the film, then the review should be compatible with IMDb's goals. The guidelines are worded to allow as much leeway as reasonable. We're kind of on our own as far as figuring out what to do about borderline cases.

I would argue with that, AJD OLD CHANNEL ARCHIVE. Every single movie is subjective, documentaries very much included, as going through the process of direction, editing etc. it shapes into what director wants to show you, not just a chronicle, but a narrative structure.

I wrote, "Sure, but it would not reserve some space in a review to point out any lies spoken by the state officials", but I meant to post, "Sure, but it would not hurt to reserve some space in a review to point out any lies spoken by the state officials".

That is rather worrying, every avenue of communication is becoming stricter and stricter by the month, where anything that does not tow the company line, or is critical of status quo of the Western societal system is either demonised, outlawed, or ridiculed.

I hope IMDB can change their tune and try to remain and impartial, unbiased, and fair play for people to share their honest opinions on film and related mediums. Trying to use a false claim that is not even really applicable to art forms such as cinema which is at least as subjective as it is objective (more so to some, less so to others) is pretty sneaky and unethical, some would say corrupt and manipulative.

What has happened in France had NOTHING to do with censorship. Quite the opposite: never did the government crack down on protesters, the freedom of speech was fully protected, at the risk of the Saturday riots in Paris.

Thanks for the good laugh!May I advise you to be very cautious about your sources, especially in international politics?(and I happen to have been French for the past 60 years, and to be living in Paris...)(and again, this has nothing to do with IMDb data issues and policies management)

Didn't France attempt to make research and sharing of information regarding "conspiracy theories" illegal a year or two ago? If that isn't the very definition of censorship and totalitarianism then I don't know what is. The day when difference of thought is considered a crime, is the day we no longer live in anything near to resembling democracy (so perhaps we'd have to go back to <2500 BC).

I do not recall that attempt, and if so, it was never implemented. But a few months ago, a bill was passed against fake news promoters and exploiters. And I think France is far from being the only one to have voted such a regulation.But above all, I invite you to come, listen to people, browse the medias, listen to the debates, and judge by yourself.

Weather you are on the left or the right of this issue is irrelevant.Agreeing or disagreeing with the documentary is not what reviews are for.Defending on debunking content is not what reviews are for.Reviews should focus on how it was made. The style. The editing. The Sound Quality. Etc...Weather it presented all facts. Or weather there were omissions. Opinions about the content should be left to other media. Opinions about the way the content is presented is welcome.Avoid these things and your review should stand for all time.Why you ask?Because you left your political viewpoint out of the equation!Reviews here are about how well or badly it was made.Reviews are not a platform for Debating or Statements.When you report bad reviews for consideration for removal there are only 4 choices.Any review deviating from what I have described can be deemed "Not Relevant"

"Reviews should focus on how it was made. The style. The editing. The Sound Quality. Etc..." What else? What are the cetera? Just because the style, the editing and the sound quality are all okay, or fantastic for that matter, does not mean that the movie is not terrible.

Just to let you know...I'm on your side. Yes the dreaded "C" word!I agree with you.But I would not use the IMDb and post a review like you did.I want to. But it is not appropriate. This site is about the fans of entertainment. When they look at a review they want an honest opinion on it's quality. If in the case of a documentary is it factual. In the case of your review...You could read my short review above. If I had submitted it. It would have 2 sentences added.

Not recommended due to a glaring omission of all the facts!

Basically a one sided non documentary propaganda production.

Reprint from above

While this documentary was well crafted and well presented, photographed
and edited, it was however not very good by this reviewers opinion
because it presented a slanted one sided view of the facts.